The results of the Burson-Marsteller 2009 Lobbying Survey

1. The results of the Burson-Marsteller 2009 Lobbying Survey

2. Methodology of the survey • 50 interviews in Brussels and 30 interviews were completed in: • Austria, Czech, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Spain and UK. • Audience definitions comprised of these criteria: •   Senior decision makers in Government or civil service occupation •   Interact with lobbyists very often, quite often or occasionally • Very or somewhat high interest in current affairs • The interviews were undertaken by PSB through a mixture of online, phone and face to face interviews. • Dates of fieldwork: October 2008– July 2009

3. What would best describe a lobbyist?

4. Who are the lobbyists? • The most recognised lobbyists overall are: • 61% :Trade associations (Germany 58%) • 57% : Public affairs agencies (Germany 58%) • 50%: NGOs (Germany 45%) • Recognition for these top categories of lobbyist is highest in Nordic, Austria and Brussels and generally low for most categories of lobbyist in France, Hungary and Spain. • A Brussels particularity: 56% of respondents deem lawyers as lobbyists starkly contrasting with the overall 24% (Germany 35%)

5. What are the positive aspects of lobbying? • National respondents mostly viewed lobbyist as a means to raise local and national issues with a 50% average • This peaks in Germany (74%), the UK (72%) and Italy (70%) • Providing information at the right time peaks in Germany ( 65%) • By contrast to Brussels, the top positive aspects of lobbying are perceived as: • Sharing expertise : 60% (Germany 61%) • Ensuring the that technical information is made intelligible: 58% (48%) • Lobbying is a constructive part of the democratic process: 52% (48%) • Compared to a 48% EU average, only 3% of Polish respondents see lobbying as a constructive part of the democratic process

6. What are the negative aspects of lobbying? • Overall across Europe, lobbying is seen to be lacking transparency (57%) (G 65%)and not providing neutral information (55%) (G 65%) • 90% of Poles see lack of transparency as a major problem of lobbying (Germany 65%) • Figures collected in Brussels are in line with the overall average • In striking contrast to the overall 23% average, 58% of German regulators and politicians see lobbying as exerting an undue influence on the democratic process

7. How transparent are lobbyists? • NGOs received higher ratings in Northern European countries (e.g. 8.35 in Norway and 8.19in Denmark) and Brussels (7.6) (Germany 6.8) • Brussels regulators and politicians largely share this view, with companies being seen as most transparent (7.96) (Germany 8.0) • In Brussels (and generally across Europe), public affairs agencies (5.71) (Germany 6.3) are seen as somewhat more transparent than law firms (5.33) (Germany 5.45)

8. What influences you to speak to a lobbyist? • Transparency is, as in the countries surveyed, one of the main factors rating at 69% (Germany 74%) • The survey highlights that the Brussels respondents are most willing to speak to a lobbyist when the topic is in their field of expertise (73%) (Germany 71%)or if it interests them (71%) (Germany 55%) • Lobbiysts need to be particulary well prepared in Germany (71%) avg 40% • Listing on a register is a factor in deciding to speak to a lobbyist for only 29% (Germany 29%)of Brussels regulators and politicians. This contrast with an overall average low figure of 19% across Europe. This factor rates highest in Italy (50%)where there is currently no public registry for lobbyists.

9. Which are the most effective lobbyist? • The ranking differs slightly for Brussels were NGOs rank third with 6.42 • Public Affairs agencies effectiveness peaks in Austria (6,72) and Germany (6,61%) • All categories of lobbyists in the Netherlands are perceived as less effective with rates ranging from 4.68for trade unions to 3.32 for companies Scale of 1 to 10

10. Effectiveness of lobbying: Industry vs. NGO

11. Poor practices frequently commited by Industry & NGOs

12. Which sources are used to make a decision? • An overwhelming 95% of respondents find that their best source is their own research, with peaks at 100% in six countries The next source of information identified are: • 93% : Colleagues • 90%: Their staff • 89%: National public authorities • 87% : Internet • Overall, 76% of the respondents find that the European institutions are a helpful source of information • Interestingly the highest score for the European institutions is in Poland (97%) and Italy (94%),then followed shortly behind by Brussels respondents (92%) • NGOs come last as a source of information with 60%

13. How best to best provide information • Overall meetings are seen by half of the respondents as the most efficient manner to communicate information. This is followed by site visits (41%) and written briefing material (35%) (Germany 48%) • Respondents in Poland (77%),Germany (68%) and Hungary (67%) found meetings was the most efficient manner to receive information • Site visits are particular popular in Norway (60%) (Germany 55 %) • Email and phone contacts rank far below (Germany 23/13%)

14. Key Findings for Germany German politicians look for a critical exchange with Lobbyists Lobbying seen as positive in terms of raising the importance of an issue(74%),and sharing expertise (61%) compared to a50%and47%European average By far the greatest concerns that lobbying can represent an undue influence on the democratic process (58%compared to a23%European average) Transparency and objective information are vital 65%of German respondents see lobbying negatively when it lacks transparency and question the neutrality of lobbyists The receptivity of German regulators to speaking with a lobbyist depends greatly on how well the lobbyist has prepared his case (71%; European average40%)